[Tlhingan-hol] noun{'e'} (...) ghaH

[SuStel]

On 2/8/2016 5:30 AM, mayql qunenoS wrote:
> Some time ago,  in a discussion that took place between Qov and me, I
> was informed that the following construction can be employed :
>
> noun{'e'} (...) ghaH
>
> With the given example
>
> {Qov'e' qa'naDa'ngan ghaH}
> As for Qov she's a Canadian.

I wouldn't accept this formally. I see what she's doing: she's starting 
with a perfectly acceptable "to be" sentence, {qa'naDa'ngan ghaH} "she's 
a Canadian," and adding a syntactic noun at the front.

I can see a couple of reasons not to do this. First of all, the "to be" 
sentence already has a standard form that includes a topicalized noun: 
{qa'naDa'ngan ghaH Qov'e'} "Qov is a Canadian." The "subject" is marked 
with {-'e'}, which isn't an instance of emphasis; it must be topic. 
{qa'naDa'ngan ghaH Qov'e'} already means "as for Qov, she is a Canadian."

Furthermore, we also know that when a "to be" sentence has a locative 
noun involved, the noun that is "being" is moved:

    HoD ghaH
    he is the captain

    pa'Daq ghaHtaH HoD'e'
    the captain is in his quarters

It may be that any syntactically marked noun causes a "to be" sentence 
to behave this way:

   *noHmo' ghaH Sub'e'
    because of the war he is a hero

We've never seen such a sentence, but it's not impossible.

> PS : Did anyone receive a mail I sent with the title Ca'non pIn'a'
> QaHlIj vIneH ?

I received both of them. I've got an answer; I'll reply shortly.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name